Thanks Ioan, On 03/19/2016 08:42 AM, Ioan Nicu wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:42:55AM -0700, EXT Eric Nelson wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I've been seeing the same sort of issues repoted by Ionut >> and as addressed by this patch: >> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2014-January/171459.html >> >> That patch was added in commit fc0fc50 and reverted in commit 715b56f. >> >> It no longer applies cleanly, and when I tried to resurrect it, >> I saw errors traversing directories and perhaps something went >> wrong with my merge. >> >> Ionut, do you have a current version of this patch? >> > > We reverted that patch because it was breaking ext4 write support. I initially > developed the patch on top of an older u-boot which didn't have write supoort > at all. > > I have tried to refactor my patch to work with both read/write, but I gave up > when I saw that the ext4 write code relied on the old behavior of > read_allocated_block/ext4fs_get_extent_block. I could have worked around that, > but then the whole thing would have looked like hack, so I didn't like it ... > > If you are interested in a current version of this patch, I could try to > revive it. But it has the limitation I mentioned above, so I guess you could > use it just for some ext4 read performance measurement test. >
I do want to get rid of the performance problem, but as I suggested by my patch set, I think that a more general-purpose cache is a better approach. Regards, Eric _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
